[hoppimike]

Hiya

Sorry to post like this, I hope it's ok, but for me and for quite a lot of other people it could be fairly important and also for the right person it's probably VERY easy to achieve!

Basically, there is this single chemical I want to make, but I don't have the expertise or access to the equipment to do it. The chemical is called "s-equol" and is totally safe and actually made naturally in the bodies of about 30% of the world's population from soy.

I guess I am trying to find someone who might have a bit of time and a curiosity about trying something new that has the potential to help a very large number of people (it is a potent antiandrogen and more, and yet 95% side effect free as far as studies show).

Thanks, if anyone can find the time and things to help you have no idea how appreciative I (and quite possibly many people) would be - forever in your debt!

Thanks,

Mike, UK

[Borek]

Making it is one thing, taking it - when there is not hard data about its safety - is another.

The chemical is called "s-equol" and is totally safe and actually made naturally in the bodies

Just because it is made in bodies doesn't mean much in the context of safety.

it is a potent antiandrogen and more, and yet 95% side effect free as far as studies show

After short googling I can agree with you that it looks interesting, but most of the results I have seen where called "preliminary" and "promising", that's not the closed case yet.

[Jorriss]

After short googling I can agree with you that it looks interesting,

That's what I thought. I hadn't heard of it before so I figured he was asking how to make some LSD type s#*$ or something.

The synthesis doesn't seem like it'd be that complicated.

[hoppimike]

I do agree I mean, it's always risky testing something new and trialling it. However I really do think this stuff is safe. I actually contacted the previous company that were producing it for a supplement, and they told me they considered it safe - none of their trials or studies indicated any problem. When I couple that with the fact that 30% of people have the chemical inside themselves naturally, it seems quite indicated to me that this chemical is not something to be too concerned about in terms of safety.

I have heard mixed views on how bioavailable it is when taken orally, which seems like the most likely initial hurdle, but I am struggling to find anything which indicates anything other than it being "highly bioavailable" when taken in supplement form. I think the odds of this are probably quite high

[hoppimike]

I would be willing to pay

[orgopete]

Just a philosophic question. If s-equol inhibits the synthesis of dihydrotestrone (DHT) and there inhibitors of DHT, why take s-equol?

As I looked at some of the inhibitors, I was reminded of how difficult it is to keep drug bioactive. You may find groups present whose function may be to reduce metabolism. I would be cautious in believing s-equol would be very effective because I suspect it might have a fairly short half-life. If you increase the concentrations in order to maintain a bioeffective concentration, then it also increases the possibility of side effects that might escape much lower levels.

Safe? You want to mess around with steroids? Hormone replacement therapy arose out of a thought that if post-menopausal women's risk of heart disease matched that of men, then replacing the lost steroids would restore the risk factors. In fact, after a considerable period to time, that did not turn out to be the case at all. Not only that, but estrogen is a risk factor for breast cancer.

Are the androgenic steroids safe? It is in your body, but is taking testosterone good for you?

[demoninatutu]

If it is as promising a lead (i.e. a new drug candidate) as you suggest, I would be surprised if some pharmaceuticals company weren't already on the case. If they aren't, it suggests there may be practical problems that reduce its effectiveness as a commercial drug, which could be anything from patent problems to lack of efficacy, bioavailability etc. It might also already be on the market, under a different name, but in a form which has been considerably improved by chemists already.

A useful line of enquiry might be to contact a medicinal chemistry or pharmaceuticals department at your local university. Or, even better, to contact the authors of the research articles that suggest its efficacy.

Before doing so, however, you should do as much open-minded research (by which I mean be open to the possibility that s-equol is not really effective) as possible. A simple question regarding whether or not s-equol is a candidate for drug development (quoting scientific literature), and why, is likely to get the best results. Note that quoting something you read in a 'lifestyle' magazine, or insisting that there's a conspiracy to keep s-equol off the market is just going to irritate people and lose you any cooperation that you might have otherwise gained (c.f. the 'herbal remedy' lobby).

[hoppimike]

Some great information on this chemical:

http://www.biolreprod.org/content/70/4/1188.abstract

Equol (7-hydroxy-3[4′hydroxyphenyl]-chroman) is the major metabolite of the phytoestrogen daidzein, one of the main isoflavones found abundantly in soybeans and soy foods. Equol may be an important biologically active molecule based on recent studies demonstrating that equol can modulate reproductive function. In this study, we examined the effects of equol on prostate growth and LH secretion and determined some of the mechanisms by which it might act. Administration of equol to intact male rats for 4–7 days reduced ventral prostate and epididymal weight and increased circulating LH levels. Using binding assays, we determined that equol specifically binds 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT), but not testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, or estrogen with high affinity. Equol does not bind the prostatic androgen receptor, and has a modest affinity for recombinant estrogen receptor (ER) β, and no affinity for ERα. In castrated male rats treated with DHT, concomitant treatment with equol blocked DHT's trophic effects on the ventral prostate gland growth and inhibitory feedback effects on plasma LH levels without changes in circulating DHT. Therefore, equol can bind circulating DHT and sequester it from the androgen receptor, thus altering growth and physiological hormone responses that are regulated by androgens. These data suggest a novel model to explain equol's biological properties. The significance of equol's ability to specifically bind and sequester DHT from the androgen receptor have important ramifications in health and disease and may indicate a broad and important usage for equol in the treatment of androgen-mediated pathologies.

[orgopete]

I agree that the authors have shown that equol is an anti-androgen (in castrated male rats).

Let's see what other inhibitors of DHT are out there already?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=inhibitors+of+DHT

Here is an interesting paper that lists other inhibitors of DHT.
http://www.nursa.org/article.cfm?doi=10.1621/nrs.01009

On the philosophic issue. Historically, as chemical sophistication grew and it was becoming evident that there are people that would take advantage of public ignorance, the FDA was created. It was then later modified to include "safe and effective". However, Congress also provided an escape for products of nature, although the FDA has stepped in in a few cases were lack of safety was an issue. Natural products generally try to avoid proving they work for if they do, then they are drugs and become subject to FDA regulations. I certainly don't like natural products to be an escape route to quackery. I don't want to overturn the FDA.

I am not wanting to take a position on Foods. Foods do provide nutrients of a variety of types, which may include phytosteroids or compounds that can act alike. I don't want to see "Rice Krispies" to be subject to FDA regulation. I also don't want to see "Rice Krispies" fortified with "Equol" to be unregulated.

There is much talk of whether drug companies are simply modern and sophisticated snake oil salesmen. When you have a new anti-tumor agent that extends life for a few months, there may be some truth. When you have the new anti-retroviral agents, I disagree.

If someone has an interest in equol as an anti-androgen, it should be a free country. I think in the public interest (or a drug manufacturer), I would be opposed to equol to be allowed to escape FDA regulation. (If you are selling a food that happened to have it, that would be different, genetic engineering excepted.) If you were absolutely convinced that you could make and sell equol as an anti-androgen, that you could prove that it is "safe and effective", I say go for it. If you are worried that someone can sell soybeans that contains equol or that other anti-androgens are better, I wouldn't bet the ranch just yet.

Without highjacking this thread, I was surprised to see the FDA blocked the sale of ibuprofen as a topical treatment. I really like any treatment that can be localized to an injury. Come on, you can eat it, but you cannot put it on your skin without proving it to be safe and effective?